Reading Response 2

The following are responses to assigned readings from The New World Reader: Thinking and Writing about the Global Community, edited by Gilbert H. Muller.

“Justice for Women” by Ellen Goodman

2) An angry, bitterly sarcastic tone pervades the text of Ellen Goodman’s article “Justice for Women,” which calls on the Bush administration to take a stronger stand for women’s rights by adopting a UN anti-discrimination convention. By using an informal, sardonic tone, Goodman approaches topics of grave seriousness — rape, genital mutilation, stoning women to death for “adultery” — as someone who is simply fed up; she’s mad as hell and she’s not going to take it anymore. This is not to say that there is not a well thought-out structure for the piece, but it is clear that Goodman is approaching the issues like you might see an enraged, acerbic barfly approach them. For example, Goodman puts sneers in her verbiage by continually, almost excessively, putting words in quotation marks: “inflicting the ‘law,’” “the crime of ‘adultery,’” “needed more ‘study,’” and so on (133-134). Goodman also achieves her sarcastic tone by using almost shockingly informal colloquialisms to describe geopolitical situations. Goodman refers to women as “the punching bags of injustice” and tongue-in-cheekly says Saudi Arabia is “no poster child for women’s rights" (133, 134). These and other stylistic elements give the reader the impression that Goodman has already seen the same, tired poltical excuses for not respecting women’s rights, and now she wants action.

This tone, of course, impacts what material Goodman selects for the piece. Goodman needs to establish the fact that women’s rights violations are occurring repeatedly in the world, so she uses several powerful examples, including an “honor rape” in Pakistan and the stoning of a woman in Nigeria, and then simply refers to countries that have abused women. Interspersed with these examples, Goodman emphasizes that the Bush administration is playing both sides of the coin by including quotes from Bush regarding women’s rights in Afghanistan and then showing that his State Department is suppressing passage of the convention. Goodman underscores the administration’s inactivity by describing how the previous three presidents have signed human rights treaties. These examples serve to tell the reader, “Duh. All these presidents, including Bush, agree that human rights is necessary. Why is the president’s administration doing nothing, then?” The tone and content of the article compel the reader to side with Goodman, and agree that something finally needs to be done.

“To Any Would-Be Terrorists” by Naomi Shihab Nye

1) In her compelling open letter “To Any Would-Be Terrorists,” Naomi Shihab Nye sets up an interesting relationship with her potential terrorist group: she is both a part of them and separate from them, like a family member that doesn’t want to associate herself with a black sheep that’s done a very bad thing. Nye repeatedly asks this audience questions using the word “you,” but finishes the essay by saying she’s their “distant Arab cousin” (314). Nye shares their heritage but not their objectives.

In establishing this black-sheep style, Nye uses a tone one might expect of an angry mother and uses words that tell this audience she is both one with them, but is furious. There is almost condescension in some of Nye’s diction when she is addressing the would-be terrorist audience. She asks them questions that one might ask a child that hasn’t learned a lesson in manners, like “Arabs have always been famous for their generosity. Remember?” (312). There is both arrogance and precision in this tone of speaking: yes, these lessons are obvious, but for terrorists, they aren’t. Nye hopes the potential terrorists understand these fundamental principles that have been wiped clean when they decided to take lives: these are people; they are nice; they don’t like killing people. Attempting to make this audience listen to her and swallow her superior style, Nye continually reinforces that she is a part of them, at least in terms of racial heritage. Nye tells the audience that she “know[s] what kind of food [they] like” and that she “feel[s] a little closer to [them] than most Americans could possibly feel” (311). To back up this connection Nye reminds her audience of her Palestinian father and her many Middle Eastern relatives and friends. Yes, this writer is scolding them, but she is not an entire outsider in doing so.

At the same time, Nye is addressing the wider American audience, reminding its members of their positive, compassionate attributes, and hoping this compassion will continue. Nye speaks about how Americans are empathetic to the situation in the Palestinian territories, how they are angered by the killing of Arabs, especially in Iraq, and how many of them have expressed solidarity with her, fearing she would be persecuted for her Arab background after Sept. 11. In doing so, Nye is hoping these Americans will continue having, and more Americans will adopt, a caring attitude towards the Muslims and Arabs in their communities. Thus, Nye’s essay is a plea for understanding from both Middle Eastern and American cultures.

A Shield for Democracy: The Importance in Protecting Journalists from Courts

Getting one’s morning paper is a dangerously mundane process.

Hobbling to the front door still in pajamas, millions of Americans see newspapers as an unchangeable part of our lives; as benign as our alarm clocks or cups of coffee. What many of us don’t see is the fragility of this institution that we take for granted. Between the lines of print, we can’t see Jim Taricani, who spent six months in house arrest for not revealing his source in a bribing scandal story. We don’t connect the situation of Josh Wolf — a video blogger nearing his sixth month in prison for an anti-G8 summit video — or Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, San Francisco Chronicle reporters looking at 18 months in prison for protecting their sources in a steroid-dealing ring story. Unbeknown to many Americans, there is a war raging today between an overzealous judiciary and reporters trying to do their jobs. Dozens of journalists in the United States currently face jail time and fines for doing their jobs and protecting unnamed sources. Many Americans also likely don’t know that there is a protection available that we must activate: a federal shield law.

To understand the importance of a federal shield law, one must first understand the role of the press in American government. When framers of the Constitution included in the First Amendment a provision that protected freedom of the press, they were introducing this entity as an essential part of the government — another check in America's system of checks and balances. As journalist Andrew Marr explains in the British newspaper the Independent,

"The only way to keep the huge power of the market and the political elites in some kind of check is through an informed, active and occasionally difficult citizenry. And this, in turn, needs public-sphere journalism."

From this principle rises the notion of reporter's privilege: the idea that, much like in executive privilege, in fulfilling their role within the fourth estate, journalists are guaranteed certain privileges not granted to every citizen. One of these rights is the right to secrecy; in order for journalists to do their jobs successfully and for sources to feel comfortable in divulging information to reporters both must be assured that their identities will be protected.

However, this privilege is being stripped away by many in America's court system. By claiming that journalists should be required to testify in cases about which they received information from confidential sources, judges can charge those that refuse with contempt of court. Since 1984, over 20 America reporters have been jailed for contempt for protecting news sources, according to the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press. Cases in Connecticut, Florida, New York, and many other states are currently under review, with fines and jail time hanging in the balance. There are cases pending across the U.S. for other journalists. Across the globe, Reporters Without Borders cites 144 reporters currently under arrest, including two in the United States.

These numbers give rise to the need of a federal shield law. Currently there are three bills in Congress that would shield reporters from prosecution, the most comprehensive of which is the Free Speech Protection Act of 2005. Introduced by Senator Chrisropher Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, the bill would provide a variety of individuals in a variety of media (including, coincidentally, bloggers) with protection against far reaching subpoenas, like those in the cases above. In only extreme cases would reporters be required to divulge the names of secret sources, thereby making sources comfortable in talking to the press and reporters safe in doing their jobs. Though some states, including Arizona, have their own shield laws in place, 17 states do not and many others have very weak laws in place. A national shield law would show that America as a whole understands the importance of a free press, and through this, transparent government.

A federal shield law is not simply a desire of those within the media; the majority of Americans support the idea as well. According to a First Amendment Center 2004 survey, when given the simple statement “Journalists should be allowed to keep a news source confidential,” the majority — 72 percent — said they strongly or mildly agreed, while only 23 percent mildly or strongly disagreed, with 4 percent unsure As editors at the New York Times, one of the very institutions under attack in this conflict, eloquently wrote:

"The specter of reporters being imprisoned merely for doing their jobs is something that should worry everyone who cherishes the First Amendment and the essential role of a free press in a democracy."

Clearly, American citizens understand this independent media importance.

Reasonably, there are concerns accompanying a law that could, in effect, prevent Americans from testifying about a crime. One could extend this concern to the idea that criminals might be emboldened and feel there is less chance of their crimes being discovered. However, there has been no correlation between a rise in crime and state federal shield laws, and none of these laws passed by the states have been repealed. Additionally, shield laws being proposed, including Dodd's, contain limits that allow prosecutors to obtain limited information from journalists if this is their only means of obtaining evidence. One could also argue that the idea of a fourth estate is flawed, and will not result in stronger government. Indeed, no studies have been done to determine if a federal shield law necessarily results in better journalism or greater government transparency. However, looking at countries that have greater restrictions on press freedoms, one sees there is an intimate connection between treatment of the press and treatment of individual rights. For example, the governments of China, Burma, and Eritrea repress freedom of the press, and are all listed by the State Department as human rights abusers. Though we may not understand the direct connection between a free press and a free society, it is clear that these bonds are great.

Declaration of Independence author Thomas Jefferson once said of the freedom of the press,

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

Thomas Jefferson was wrong: there is no choice between newspapers and (democratic) governments. They come together or they die alone. Without an informed electorate, corruption thrives, political interest atrophies, and an authoritarian, illegitimate government rises from the waste; countries like China and Eritrea show us this. It’s time America showed it understands the importance of journalism by passing a federal shield law, before its citizens wake up one morning to find no newspapers on their doorsteps.

Needing a Shield for Democracy: Journalists and the Courts

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without
newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment
to prefer the latter."

-Thomas Jefferson, 1787

With this dramatic quote, the father of our Declaration of Independence made an extremely powerful statement about a free press’ role in American society: independent media is the fourth estate, just as important to the welfare of a nation the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

The foundation of this estate is increasingly under attack, however, by an overzealous judiciary attempting to permanently check the powers of this estate. On June 5, 2005, Mississippi Circuit Judge Robert Bailey ruled that (Jackson) Clarion-Ledger reporter Ann Radelat must provide the information of a source that gave her a confidential memo under penalty of arrest. In 2004, Rhode Island television reporter Jim Taricani was sentenced to six months in prison for refusing to reveal a source who provided him a tape of an alleged bribe. In 2003, though the circumstances of her arrest have since become more dubious, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller was imprisoned for weeks for refusing to name the government source who leaked the information of a CIA spy.
These cases, and hundreds more like them, demonstrate the need for a defense for reporters and their sources. This defense is a federal shield law. Though some states, including Arizona, have their own shield laws, 17 states do not and many others have very weak laws in place. Currently there are three bills in Congress that would shield reporters from prosecution, the most comprehensive of which is the Free Speech Protection Act of 2005. Introduced by Senator Chrisropher Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, the bill would provide a variety of individuals in a variety of media (including, coincidentally, bloggers) with protection against far reaching subpoenas, like those in the cases above. Though there are exceptions to the shield, the bill provides much greater protection than reporters currently enjoy.
What is more compelling about this issue is that a federal shield law is not simply a desire of those within the media; the majority of Americans support the idea as well. According to a First Amendment Center 2004 survey, when given the simple statement “Journalists should be allowed to keep a news source confidential,” the majority — 72 percent — said they strongly or mildly agreed, while only 23 percent mildly or strongly disagreed, with 4 percent unsure. Clearly, these citizens understand the importance of an independent media in their society. As editors at the New York Times, one of the very institutions under attack in this conflict, eloquently wrote:

"The specter of reporters being imprisoned merely for doing their jobs is
something that should worry everyone who cherishes the First Amendment and the
essential role of a free press in a democracy."

Underlying the entire federal shield law debate is a simple fact: democracies need the light of a free press to survive. Without an informed electorate, corruption thrives, political interest atrophies, and an authoritarian, illegitimate government rises from the waste. In a time when news has become more fickle and less hard-hitting, it is tremendously important that journalists feel the duty and right to fully investigate wrongdoing and to report the information to the people. With the danger of lawsuits standing in both them and their sources way, there is no way this can be achieved. Thomas Jefferson was wrong: there is no choice between newspapers and (democratic) governments. They come together or they die alone. It’s time America had a federal shield law that proves we understand that.